Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leotask

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 22:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leotask

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Leotask (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A mixture of promotion and manual for a non-notable bit of software. I don't get a single relevant Google hit that isn't Wikipedia or a page related to the project.
PRODded by User:NawlinWiki as "nonnotable and self-promotional"; PROD removed by article creator User:Mleoking with the justification that "This is a completely free & open-source framework, and there is no commercial interest to promoter it. 2) The framework has been used by many colleagues in my research lab, and we believe it will befit researchers in a wide community.". Kolbasz (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (as prodder), nonnotable and self-promotional (User:Mleoking; "Leotask"). NawlinWiki (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, can not really understand the rationale to delete the article. I understand Wikipedia as somewhere for people to collectively explain existing concepts. 1) LeoTask is a publicly available framework in Github, and it can be used by more researchers. So that I feel it deserves an entry on Wikipedia. 2) notable is a relative term. Is everything on Wikipedia notable? (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC) — From1998 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment: @From1998:, it appears you have signed your post as both NawlinWiki and Kolbaz. Could you please correct this to your own username so that other users don't conclude you are trying to impersonate them Dolescum (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Updated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by From1998 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Please read the guide to deletion. Arguments in a deletion discussion should not be based on personal feelings, but rather Wikipedia's policies.
    Wikipedia is not indiscriminate; it has certain rules and standards for inclusion. The most important of those is the concept of notability. The standard test for notability is that the subject has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". As far as I can tell, Leotask has received no coverage whatsoever by any independent source.
    In addition to the rules for inclusion, there are also exclusionary rules. These include (linked above, but examples for completeness' sake) promotion ("a fast, flexible and reliable framework") and how-to guides ("Every application should extend the Task class and implement the application by overriding Task's methods"). Kolbasz (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The entry is updated and the problematic phrases you mentioned are revised.
• Keep, an author is in the best position to describe the things he/she invented. I feel authors should be encouraged to directly contribute to wiki entries about the things they created, rather than calling them self-promotional. Authors' contributions may be biased. However biased is not a reason to delete an article. Instead that means more people should be involved to make the description more objective: i.e. the article should remain in the Wikipedia. talk. — Preceding undated comment added 19:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Mleoking (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Kolbasz (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. Per nom and NawlinWiki. Completely fails WP:GNG and it appears that no absolutely no reliable sources exist that mention this project. I'd also add that WP:NOTWEBHOST might apply, given that the article looks like a copy and paste from the README.md in Mleoking's github repo with some graphics added for further explanation. Dolescum (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong is a term relevant to personal feelings.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Love2read2write (talk • contribs) 16:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there are active discussions about the framework on Stack Overflow. In addition, criticizing someone for copy and paste does not help improve the quality of an entry. People should be encouraged to contribute more and comment less. Love2read2write — Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)— Love2read2write (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Stack Overflow - an open-for-all question and answer website - is not a reliable source. Nor do 6 posts on it - that all showed up 5-6 hours ago - confer notability. Kolbasz (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete There is not even a claim to significance for this software, this articles fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT and there seems to be zero relibale sources.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just found and added a reference for this entry ^[1]. It is only a matter of days before Google Scholar includes this article (FYI, Google Scholar will include every article published by arXiv). Given the influence of arXiv and Google Scholar, the coverage,references to this article will only increase in the future. The title of the debate will be increasingly out of date. As the editor noted in the title of this page we should remember to assume good faith on the part of others. The contributors of this entry spent time and efforts to give their insights about a useful framework. Can I encourage the commentators to join them? If the efforts spent in this debate were instead used in revising the entry, the quality of the entry would be significantly improved already.

• I personally downloaded and tested the software. I found it to be a very good implementation of the MapReduce model on a mult-core computer. I then added my bit of thought (about MapReduce, and recovery from interruption) in the description of this entry. I feel this is the very kind of positive contribution required by wikipedia. My name summarizes my thought: DoRatherThanTalk DoRatherThanTalk (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)— DoRatherThanTalk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

1. Changwang Zhang; Shi Zhou; Benjamin M. Chain (January 2015). "LeoTask: a fast, flexible and reliable framework for computational research" (arXiv:1501.01678). Cornell University. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

• Once again: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Kolbasz (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Not an actual publicity, it is referring to some better sources than we assume before selecting for deletion. SamuelDay1 (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, zero independent coverage. That "better source than we assume" was coauthored by one of the software's developers. —Cryptic 18:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Kolbasz- Google search results bear out the lack of notability of this article: First two are from WP, the third is the only source that's even close to reliable, the fourth is the GitHub link, the fifth is categorized under Blatant Advertising, the sixth through ninth are not pertinent, and the tenth is by the author of the software, nor did I find anything relevant in the 11th through 30th. Also, judging by the fact that ALL of the accounts supporting keeping the article have the few or no other edits flag, I have reason to suspect sockpuppeting, although the sockpuppetry or lack thereof should be inconsequential to the discussion. In the best interest of Wikipedia, ~Ngeaup (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The quality of the article and the quality of the software have no bearing on deletion. But according to WP:GNG, notability requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." One short paper describing the software's features does not qualify as "significant coverage." Piboy51 (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete about a week old porject. Nobody else has used it yet, except the sock puppet invasion here. Clearly not notable yet. Maybe in a year, or two. --188.110.67.117 (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I could find no reliable sources that explain why this software is notable. Also, the article has a promotional tone. --Biblioworm 23:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I found this, but I guess it was written by the developers. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. --Jakob (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're not wrong, no. (It's already mentioned above and cited in the article, too.) —Cryptic 00:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • More importantly, it's not peer reviewed or submitted to any journal. It's the academic version of a press release. Kolbasz (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.